First off, I must commend Saudi (www.xanga.com/seahmad) for taking up this argument with me. He really isn’t even a Salafi, he freakin’ taught at IIE (www.iieonline.org) for more than a year and he still continues to cling to his alleged Salafi ways. This is the equivalent of Lakers fans who continue to insist that their team will win the championship even after Shaq has left. I also apologize for not putting diacritical markings. I originally wrote this in word and tried pasting it but when I did, the diacritical markings showed up in weird symbols so I had to go through and take them out. If anyone wants the document with the diacritical markings, contact me.

Regardless, he’s written a pretty good defense of Salafism, highlighting some particular statements that I made and then attempting to refute them with his own proofs. I like how he also took time to define his usage of terms before moving on to attack my argument. Anyway, enough praise for his post. I will attempt to respond to his post by picking out salient points and answering them.

Pertaining to the definitions of Salafi, Wahhabi, etc: Casting aside labels and terms so that we don’t bog ourselves into a verbal joust of semantics, let us understand that the term “Salaf” or “Wahhabi”, in and of themselves, are not derogatory terms, but are terms used to classify and refer to people who share a common religious ideology and worldview (note the distinction between ideology and worldview, it’s quite important). With that being said, of course it stands to reason that the Salafs and Wahhabis are not going to call themselves by those terms, particularly when it is in their minds that being called such terms is demeaning. Israel calls itself a legitimate state, Al-Qaeda calls itself as holy warriors; neither, however, is really represented by such terms.By giving themselves other titles (muwahidun, etc), Salafs and Wahhabis have employed a natural psychological technique to empower themselves in the face of their opponents. As Michel Foucault (apologies for quoting this guy) points out, using labels to identify one’s self vis-a-vis others is a form of empowerment. Certainly this works both ways, as the non-Salafs use the term “Salafi” in a degrading way and vice-versa. However, the point I wanted to make is not to get bogged down in terms and to think that such terms themselves are degrading or insulting. Think of them simply as classification terms.

Pertaining to the Four Imams: The Salafs cast aside the Four Imams in the sense that they pick and choose from each school, often due to convenience. To extend Saudi’s highway analogy, this is like saying that there is a 4 lane highway that leads to one’s destination. The Four Imams essentially defined a lane for people to follow; the people of ahl-sunnah wa’l-jama`ah agree, by consensus, that each lane is just as valid as the other.However, to constantly switch lanes, weaving in and out of traffic, is not an intelligent thing to do. This task must be left to veteran drivers who have the necessary knowledge and experience to decide upon such matters, i.e., the scholars. The Salafs essentially want to let everyone, even the 16 year olds who just got their licenses, have the freedom to move between lanes at their discretion.

Pertaining to Salafi tolerance: This is an oxymoron. I already gave numerous historical and there numerous present-day examples of Salafi intolerance towards fellow Muslims who don’t believe in their way. You wrote that the Salafs are concerned that those who don’t follow their path are not on the Straight Path; don’t you think that is the same thing that those who seek to refute Salafism also believe? The Salafs not only criticize, but they have shown they will not hesitate to violently impose their will. How many thousands did Muhammab b. `Abd al-Wahhab kill as he rose to power? How many graves of Companions did the Saudi government destroy in an effort to prevent grave-worshipping?The Prophet (salallahu `alayhi wa sallam), in a beautiful hadith that is found in Bukhari/Muslim, on the authority of Anas b. Malik (the translation is mine, so forgive the errors since I only have the Arabic text):

A Bedouin came and relieved himself in the corners of the masjid so the people began to scold him but the Prophet prevented them. When he had finished his urination, the Prophet ordered for its removal with water.

This is tolerance (the Prophetic samaahah); the Salaf/Wahhabi attitude to those who don’t follow their way is anything BUT tolerance. I don’t recall the last time a Sufi went and destroyed a Salaf landmark or banned the sale of a certain classical scholarss books. Tell me why it is in Saudi Arabia that one cannot purchase Ibn Hisham’s Sirah, among many other “banned” texts.Tell me why Muhammad b. `Abdul Wahhab gave numerous fatwas labeling many Muslims as kafirs who did not agree with him and sought to stimulate his crony buddy Muhammad b. Saud to kill anyone who stood in his way.

Muhammad Ibn `Abd-l-Wahhab was a descendent of the Bani Tamim tribe and was born in the Uyaynah village (Najd) in 1111 H. (1699 CE.). His father was a learnt Hanbali scholar, and sent him to study tafsir (exegesis), fiqh (Sacred Law) and tasawwuf (spirituality) in Mecca, Medina, Baghdad, Basrah and Damascus, as well as in Iran and India. His attitude, from the beginning, was very much polemic, and he took active part in scholarly debates. During this period, he received the surname “Shaykh al-Najdi”. He contacted many Shaykhs of tasawwuf, and tried his best to be appointed as a khalifah. This request of his, however, was not accepted, since the Shaykhs realized he was too must influenced by pride and by the desire to become a leader.

At the age of thirty-two he came back to Najd and started working as a teacher for Bedouins; he also started exercising ijtihad (independent reasoning), and accusing Sunni scholars and Sufis of bid`ahs (innovations in religion)). In 1143 H. (1730 M.) he met a leader of a gang of marauders called Muhammad Ibn Saud, whose main activity was plundering travelers in the desert of Najd. Since most of those Bedouins living in Dariyyah were completely unlearnt, Ibn `Abdi-l-Wahhab could easily convict them of his theories; Ibn Saud and him made an agreement, according to which the former was appointed as the “Amir” (worldly leader), and the latter as the “Shaykh”(spiritual leader). The “Shaykh declared he was ready to publish “fatawa”(legal rulings) where non-Wahhabi Muslims were described as apostates and idol-worshippers; this point of view obviously represented a sort of “religious justification” for Ibn Saud’s gang. They were not, anymore, robbers and criminals, but “mujahids” (holy warriors), authorized to kill “kuffars”, to plunder their properties and to rape their women.

Muftis of the four madhhabs wrote a fatwa that declared them kuffars (unbelievers), and this document was distributed in the Arabian penninsula.

Muhammad Ibn `Abdi-l-Wahhab’s brother, Sulayman Ibn `Abdi-l-Wahhab (jeez, even his own brother knew he was wrong), studied his works and tried his best to invite him to repent. At least, when he realized verbal admonitions had no effect, decided to write a book against his brother’s ideology. Another contemporary scholar, Muhammad Ibn Sulayman Effendi wrote:

“O Muhammad Ibn `Abdi-l-Wahhab, do not slander Muslims! I admonish you for Allah’s sake! Does anyone of them says that there is a creator besides Allah? If you have anything to argue against Muslims, please, show them authoritative dalils. It is more correct to call you, a single person, “kafir”, than calling millions of Muslims “kuffars”. Ayah 114 of Surah an-Nisa says: “If anyone contends with the Messenger after guidance has been plainly conveyed to him, and follows a path other than the one followed by Believers, we shall leave him in the path he has chosen, and land him in hell, quite an evil refuge!” This ayah points to the situation of those who have departed from Ahlu-s-Sunnah wa-l-Jama`ah.”

When the order from the Amir of Mecca reached the Khalifah in Istanbul, he ordered Muhammad Ali Pashah, governor of Egypt to move to Najd and to stop the Wahhabi fitnah. The marauders of Ibn Saud tied to attach Mecca but failed to captured the city. Muhammad Ibn `Abdi-l-Wahhab was captured and sent in chains to Istanbul. An Islamic court of Law found him guilty of homicide, marauding and rebellion, while Muftis of the four madhhabs declared him to be a unbeliever and apostate. Finally, after having caused so much danger for this Ummah, he was executed in 1206 H (1792 M). Since he refuted to make repentance and to come back to Islam, his corpse was not permitted to be interred in a Muslim cemetery, and was burnt.

Pertaining to yet another subtle attack on the Four Schools: “even when that madhhab differs with the clear verses of the Qur’an and authentic hadiths of the Prophet, peace be upon him.” Again, every single aspect of every madhab, no matter how “weird” it appears to laymen, is backed by clear, authentic, and meticulous proofs.For example, even the provision in Shafi`i fiqh that if a man touches even his mother, he must remake his wudu is backed by clear proofs (for more information, see “The Reliance of the Traveller”, trans. Nuh Ha Meem Keller).Again, each of the madhabs are derived from what companions of the Prophet used to practice (see my previous post for the Companions and the respective schools that developed from them).The Salafi notion that the Companions magically and unanimously agreed on everything is fallacious: they disagreed on the practice of things, even when the Prophet was alive.For example, `Abdullah b. Mas`ud, would read the verse of Surat al-Qari`ah (wa takunu’l-jibalu ka’l `ahni’l-manfush) as “..­ka’l-sufi’l-manfush,”and the Prophet said he was right (if anyone is confused by the intricacies of this argument, let me know and I’ll explain it further). To illustrate another example, the Prophet told the Companions “None of you shall perform `Asr except in B. Qurayzah”. While the Companions were still en-route, the time of `Asr arrived. Some Companions felt that they should perform their `Asr immediately. They regarded the instruction of the Prophet as actually being a command to proceed very swiftly to their destination. It did not imply that the prayer could not be performed en-route and performed their prayer there. Another group of Companions viewed the instruction literally; they continued and only performed their prayer after having reached B. Qurayzah. Later when the Prophet was informed about this, he did not rebuke either group. [Sahih Bukhari].Thus, if the Companions differed on verses of the Qur’an and clear Hadith when the Prophet was alive and he accepted their difference in interpretation, how is that the Salafs attack the Four Schools which derive all of their rulings from these same Companions with an unbroken chain to the Prophet.Those who understand even the basics of Islamic knowledge understand that the chain of narration is the strength of this religion; no other religion or science has such a feature as the isnad, and it is this feature that validates and sets apart Islamic sciences–historically and methodologically–from any other study.Thus, if the chain of the Four Schools is valid, how can one claim that certain rulings in a given school are against Qur’an and Hadith. This allegation can only be made by those who have not understood the basic and historical premises of Islamic scholarship and understanding the reasons for the differences.

Pertaining to the “preferred” definition of Salafi: “Furthermore, a Salafi is one who values Tawhid, actively tries to remove Shirk, adheres to the Prophet’s (pbuh) way in life and that of the Companions, upholds the words of Allah (swt) and the Prophet (pbuh) over anyone else’s words, and enjoins the good and forbids evil… So that is what a Salafi is.” Hmm, so how’s that different from Sufism. Oh wait, the “adherence” to the Prophet’s life and that of his Companions has no chain like Sufism and the Four Schools­

Pertaining to Wahhabis following the Hanbali School: Emad, you’re going to law school, you need to read things carefully. Note that I wrote “pseudo-Hanbali” to emphasize that they do have Hanbali elements in them, but overall, they have not remained true to the Hanbali way. The clearest proof for this is in the writings of Muhammad b. `Abd al-Wahhab, wherein he titles allahl sunnah wa’l jama`ah as being polytheists. There is no way that Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal would have EVER made such a statement.

Pertaining to the religious police: Beating people to go pray in the masjid, harassing women for showing one strand of hair in the streets, etc.¡ªthey sound more like the Gestapo to me. No such religious police ever existed during the time of the Prophet or during the caliphate of the early Companions. Some of the Companions used to drink and do other things, even when the Prophet was alive¡­ yet he never established a police to keep tabs on people and find out their crimes so that he could punish them. He only punished (and I might add he also sought to find excuses to not punish people) when the case was brought to him by a plaintiff and he was made to be a judge in the matter.

Pertaining to the 4 food pyramids claim: “You are being given 4 slightly different food pyramids by 4 reliable sources. However, since they are not exactly the same, the healthiest one needs to be determined or an edited healthier version created.”Two key words here: determined and created. Again, the scholars of the Four Schools have already determined laws and practices, based on their chain to the Companions and the Prophet; they did not create anything. The Salafs, without a chain, have created laws and practices for themselves. Most importantly, this determination must be done only by those who are qualified and trained in the all the required branches of Islamic knowledge. And isn¡¯t it ironic that all those who have studied the necessary branches of knowledge all follow a School?

Pertaining to the claim that I hit below the belt: I didn’t call the Wahhabis as Jews or outside the fold of Islam–though they wouldn’t hesitate to call me and anyone else of ahl sunnah wa’l jama`ah as heretics and whatnot.I said their methodology of focusing only on the Law to the extent that the Spirit is forgotten is problematic. The true people of tasawwuf actually champion the laws more than the Salafs, in the sense that they study and master the laws before engaging in the science of tasawwuf.

Pertaining to the convenient classification of Sufis: To classify all Sufis as worshipping saints and graves, drinking wine, dancing/whirling, etc. only shows a lack of knowledge of Sufism and an insult to those who truly follow it. Let us admit from the onset that there are a lot of wackos out there who use the term tasawwuf to justify what they do.And let us also admit that these same wackos engage in all sorts of whirling, grave worship, and other outlandish practices.However, let us be clear that these outlandish practices have nothing in common with mainstream tasawwuf, namely the recognized orders (Qadiri, Naqshbandi [NOT Kabbani’s outlandish order, but the true Naqshbandis], Shadhili, Chisti, and Rifa`i) who all adhere firmly to Sacred Law, all follow a School, and all have chains of narration to the Prophet for all of their invocations and practices. That is to say that none of them have “invented” practices, but rather codified and compiled the practices of the Prophet and the Companions into a formalized system (hmm, that sounds like what the Four Imams did with Sacred Law). So let us be certain, in absolute terms, that when I refer to tasawwuf, I am referring to these orders and their ways, excluding all other pseudo-Sufis.

Pertaining to the Hadith of Najd: I find it quite interesting that all the Muftis of the Four Schools used this Hadith to refer to the Wahhabi movement during the time of Muhammad b. `Abd al-Wahhab.You write that most scholars today wouldn’t say this hadith refers to him…­ sure, if you’re referring only to Salafi scholars who have no chain to the Prophet.

Pertaining to the overemphasis on tasawwuf: I would argue that it’s the other way around: thanks to the oil-money funded efforts of the Wahhabis, Muslims today have been painted a picture of tasawwuf as being a heretical and religiously offensive practice that has no basis and no historical reality. Nothing can be further from the truth. I’ve already–hopefully–demonstrated the historical chain and its reality; as for its relevance, I thought I made it clear in the original post. Quite simply: in a world that is devoid of a connection to God and thus is suffering the consequences of that severance from God, Islamic spirituality is the quintessential remedy to this ailment that has reached globally pathologic proportions. The Qur’an clearly says: “On that Day, neither their wealth nor their children will benefit them; except for he who comes to God with a sound and pure heart.” Simply put, tasawwuf is nothing more than a system of beliefs and practices, grounded in Qur’an/Sunnah/Hadith that has been practiced by people who can trace their chain to the Prophet, that is concerned with curing the diseases of the heart such that the human being can return to God with a sound and pure heart so that it can benefit him on that Day.

Finally, pertaining to your questioning Imam al-Ghazali: Nothing else in your post made me as infuriated as this remark, for not only have you dissed my man al-Ghazali, you’ve completely misunderstood what Maududi was trying to impart.As for the latter part, it is true that Ghazali never undertook an exhaustive study of hadith during his life (though he did in the last two years of his life), for he was preoccupied with all the other challenges of his day (namely defending Islam from the Philosophers, the Ta`limites, and Theologians).Morever, there were enough hadith scholars that he didn’t need to add to the list.However, this is not to say that he had no knowledge of hadith, since he was a Jurist (Faqih) in Shafi`i fiqh, clearly indicating that he had studied hadith quite extensively.It is true that he cites some weak hadith in his works (including the Ihya), but all of these weak hadith are considered acceptable since their meanings and themes are present in other hadith/verses (a discussion on the validity of weak hadith never took place in classical times¡­ its an unfortunate byproduct of modern times). Moreover, the scholars who came after him vindicated him for his use of weak hadith, particularly Imam al-`Iraqi and al-Subki.

“Wa ma adraaka man Imam al-Ghazali?” (And what will explain to you who is Imam al-Ghazali?)I will end this by giving you a profound example of who Imam al-Ghazali was.It is unfortunate that the Salafs/Wahhabis love to bash on al-Ghazali (perhaps the main reason I dislike them… hehe) without even understanding his life, his works, and his legacy to Islam. To talk of these things would require forests of trees and streams of ink to fill pages as to the benefit that he has given to this nation and even to other religions (Thomas Aquinas stole heavily from al-Ghazali to defend Christianity, particularly against the Philosophers). Even his title, Hujjat al-Islam (the Proof of Islam), is amazing, since the scholars after him gave him this title, so as to say that one of the proofs that Islam is true and valid is that it produced a man like al-Ghazali. However, what I want to leave you with here is on the authority of Shaykh Muhammad al-Ya`qoubi, who narrated this at the Ghazali Deen Intensive:

Imam Abu’l Hasan al-Shadhili (came after al-Ghazali) once a saw a dream while he was sleeping in Masjid al-Aqsa (dreams in sanctified places like these are even more valid, according to our classical scholars).In this dream, he saw all of the Prophets sitting around Prophet Muhammad; Musa asks the Prophet to “show me one from the scholars (ulama’) of your religion who are like the Prophets of Israel” (this refers to those Prophets who were sent to the Children of Israel with confirming/reminder messages that earlier Prophets had brought, i.e., they were not given a new revelation).The Prophet then pointed to someone seated in the outskirts of the gathering and commanded, “Arise, O Ghazali!”

as salaamu alaykum wa rahmtu Allah wa barkatuuhI have to say I have not actually written anything in a very long time (which explains the incoherent nature of what I wrote), so I have to thank you for giving me an impetus to do so. Also, a disclaimer: these are just my opinions and I claim no authortativeness what so ever. I think your conflating the terms Wahabism and Salafism. First-off, by labeling Wahabism the “illegitimate child” of Salafism, you are implying that one is a derivative of the other-which it is not. This is understandable though, considering that Salafism today does not refer to the same thing it did at its inception. The first movement/organization to self-proclaim itself salafi and coin the modern usage of the word, was the one founded by Muhammad Abduh. Their movement is often dubbed “modernist,” because their primary objective was a reinterpretation of the sources, a revival of ijtihad if you will, so as to facilitate an understanding of Islam in light of modernity. A modernity which had caught Muslims generally unaware and hit them like a raging semi-truck, after centuries of lagging behind (Western civilization). The Wahabi movement on the other hand, which unlike Salafism never referred to itself by that name now designated to it, came about with its primary objective being the abolishment and extermination of what it perceived as shirk-sure it had emphatic reliance on hadith and literalist interpretations, but this was more a traditional Hanbali madhab/ahl al-hadith characteristic, rather than being particularly novel or unique to the nascent Wahabism. One apt explanation from Hafiz Amin about the Salafi/Wahabi distinction (that I heard second-hand), is that ahabism pertains to ‘aqida, and Salafism to fiqh. Now the real confusion comes from that fact that the term Salafi underwent a transformation of meaning over the years of the just-past century. It shifted from its modernist revivalism implications to its present-day Wahabi connotations. In fact, the present-day type would most likely consider the early twentieth century version as dangerously “deviant.” Another noteworthy point, is that the direct successors of the original Salafi movement was the Islamist movement, specifically Muslim Brotherhood (in fact, I think I believe Hassan al-Banna became editor of Rashid Rida’s [Abduh’s dispicle) famous publication, al-Manar). To clear up the confusion, one classification I find fitting is that of Tariq Ramadan*.He proposes that the original Salafis can be classified as adhering to “Salafi Reformism,” whereas the neo-Salafis, “Salafi Traditionalism.” They can both be seen as Salafi because both give ultimate authority to the Quran and Sunnah (Traditionalist Salafis would also include the opinions of the Salaf al-Saalah generation), while not giving the same sanctity to the tradition formulated thereafter. The difference between though is that that Salafi Traditionalist believe in relying on the interpretation of Quran and Sunnah propounded by the Salaf al-Saalah generation, while the Salafi Reformists do not see themselves as bound by the Saalaf al-Salah interpretations , although this is not to say they totally throw all previous scholarship and tradition in the dustbin, they just do not feel it is untouchable and unquestionable; in fact, the Salafi Reformists are generally much less hostile to post-Salaf scholarship than Salafi Traditionalists. An example of a Reformist would be Yusuf al-Qaradawi, and of the Traditionalist, Bin Baz. Now although Tariq Ramadan does not present the following classification, I will take the liberty of extended his logic and proposing the same categories for Sufism. Sufism, unlike Salafism, lends a certain sanctity not only to to Quran, Sunnah, and Salaf generation interpretations, but also to post-Salaf developments, with slightly disproptionate emphasis on the Classical Period/Golden Age ( roughly 800-1000 CE). Now in present-day, Sufism can be placed into two categories: Sufi Traditionalism and Sufi Reformism. Sufi Traditionalism will take the interpretations and determination found in the classical tradition as-is. Reformists will try to understand, and at times adapt, the classical tradition in light of modern times and circumstances. An example of the Reformist would be Hamza Yusuf or Dr. Umar Faruq Abdullah, and of the Traditionalist, Hussian Abdul-Sattar. The difference between the Salafi and Sufi Reformists, is simply how they define their authoritative tradition source: the Salafis see it as the Quran and Sunnah, the Sufis see it as those two plus Classical scholarship based on them-yet they both seek to understand their respective tradition sources from a modern perspective. Ditto goes for the Salafi and Sufi Traditionalists, with the obvious exception that they do not see their tradition sources as being allowed to be reinterpreted, or understood differently from how they traditionally where understood, and hence the term Traditionalists. Now one idea I have recently developed, is that when talking about “school of thought” in contemporary times, the traditional madhab paradigm is not of much use, because regardless of whether your Shafi’i, Hanafi, etc… your more likely to be identified as a madhabite or Sufi than, say, Maaliki. Thus, my proposal is that our “school of thought” classifications should now become Sufi, Salafi, Islamist, etc… I say this because, nowadays, these are the paradigms by which Muslims generally tend to view their religion and what formulations of Law they accept and view as valid. If these paradigms are to be seen as modern-day madhab equivalents, let us all them neo-madhabs, then perhaps we should treat them as we do madhabs: all neo-madhabs are valid, but I believe my neo-madhab is corret-or as Imam Abu Hanifa (?) once said, “Our opinion is correct, although there might be wrong in it, and the other opinion is wrong, although there maybe truth in it.” Also, this would suggest that disparaging other neo-madhabs and calling them evil and such is at most wrong, and at the very least, unproductive. I am not implying that debate, nor even polemics, are wrong, for no doubt they do function as moderating factors and keep our views in check, but they should be done with proper adab. And as long as someone is following a valid legal school, I think what is ultimately then important is faith, good works, and, most importantly, sincerity, for the “deen is nasihah.” “To each is a direction to which God turns him; then strive to be foremost to do good deeds. Wheresoever ye are, God will bring you together. For God Hath power over all things.”***To Be A European Muslim, Tariq Ramadan**al-Baqara 2:148-Baderas salaamu alaykum wa rahmtu Allah wa barkatuuhP.S. I think you’ll like this blog-your kinda crowd:http://underprogress.blogs.com/Be especially sure to read:http://underprogress.blogs.com/weblog/2004/07/on_philosophy.html -b/c ur a student of philosophyhttp://underprogress.blogs.com/weblog/2004/05/on_authority.html -interesting question about taqlidAlso: http://avari.blogs.comEnjoy!

I had a quick question… Is it wrong to follow more than one school of thought… what i mean is following good things from each school and not just for your conv….
for example, when i pray, most of the time, I do Rafa’ Yadaen.. the reason behind this is that it helps me to concentrate alot more on Salat.. and I think that it sort of gives me a sense of discipline… is that wrong to do?
the reason I don’t think this is wrong is because the schools of thought exist because of the different ways our beloved prophet SAS did some things… I have heard a scholor say that sometimes He prayed with his hands down and sometimes with his hands up… so I don’t think what I do is wrong…
and I don’t eat at McDonalds, people who do that are crazy… I mean the Hanafis… It’s not Haram to eat a non Zabiha meat but why would you do that when there are like 3-4 Zabiha restaurants in the neighborhood…
tell me what you think about my question…
Jazakallah

That was a horrible garbagolical post. I don’t have the time to go through it and refute every incorrect point myself, but I find it’s usually a sufficient refutation of such misunderstandings to ask one simple question: have you read any material from Shaykh Ibn Abdul-Wahhaab himself, and if so, how much?

wblessing37@yahoo.com.phhellohow are you today i hope that every things is okwithyou as is my pleassure to contact you after viewingyour profile in love.www.really interest me in having communication with youifyou will have the desire with me so that we canget toknow each other better and see what happened infuture.i will be very happy if you can write me through myemail for easiest communication and to know allabouteach other here is my email (wblessing37@yahoo.com.ph)i will be waiting tohear from you as i wish you all the best for yourday.yours new friend. blessing